He’s sitting in federal prison because he was convicted of 12 counts of failing to file quarterly payroll tax returns and 45 counts of (cash) structuring. Plus obstructing tax laws. He owes 400+K of federal taxes of various types.

Those are facts. Doesn’t matter whether anything passes any “smell test” or not.

His upcoming trial has to do with trying to interfere with the collection of what he owes.

Most people understand the first rule of holes — when you’re in one, stop digging.

Hovind, apparently not being very bright, doesn’t seem to grasp that simple concept.

After being whacked with 10 years, he then proceeds to cause stuff to be filed which might cloud the title on nine properties that are in the process of being seized to pay his tax debts, in direct violation of a court order not to do any such thing.

That’s called mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, not to mention criminal contempt of court. More federal felonies.

Which is why he will probably spend many more years in prison.

In fact, the federal sentencing guidelines suggest that, if convicted on this batch of charges, the additional time to be served could be as much as 30 years. Not to mention that the feds probably haven’t exhausted the stack of stuff he could be criminally charged with. At the rate he’s digging his hole, he might be lucky to get out of prison while he’s still alive.

See? It’s not at all hard to comment when you know a few facts about the topic at hand.

50 years ago, I used to go fishing with my grandfather on the Iron River about 50 miles west of Iron County. He and a few other guys had a hunting/fishing place (a really old farmhouse) on a property that the river ran through, a mile or so from Lake Superior. Very rustic. No plumbing.

And the Iron River ran really, really RED in the spring. Looked like a river of rust.

Gosh, think maybe there’s some iron in the area?

Taconite mining is a big deal on the north shore in Minnesota, so it’s about time somebody found something on the south shore to develop. Those northern WI counties have a median income that’s about half the national average, so good for them.

A $1.5 billion mining operation is a huge deal to that area. Back when Gramps used to take my little brother and I into town for a beer there were no stupid hippy chicks/enviro-nazi zealots making total idiots out of themselves — such a thing was unimaginable.

I’m sure 90% of the locals are cheering this deal. Thank you, Scott Walker for trying to expedite it. Hopefully, the crazies don’t slow it down too much.

What you and the rest of the knee-jerk economic illiterates on this thread fail to realize is that the economy is doing fairly well, despite the worst efforts of jug-ears.

Why? Republicans took the House in 2010. Never mind Boehner or McConnell or any lack of spine.

The useless golfer has been totally stymied by the House for 4 years — the end of extended unemployment benefits and the budget sequester brake on spending growth did the job.

Growth should be a lot better than it is, but we have survived and overcome the ongoing disaster that was and is President Chickenshit.

Try as he might, the bumbling idiot in the White House hasn’t been able to stop the American people from doing what they do best.

Now we have the Senate, too. His agenda isn’t just totally dead, the doofus now will be forced to actually veto what the public wants, bill after bill to the detriment of any and every Democrat running in 2016.

So, you're somewhere between 40 and 45 years out of date. Let me be the first to thank you for plastering your abject ignorance all over this thread.

Here are the facts: Every month, about 3.2 million people quit, retire or are fired. Of those, about 1.3 million file new claims for unemployment "insurance" in any given month. About 300K/week.

The rest (about 1.9 million) quit to take a new job, retired or don't bother filing a UC claim because they know they are disqualified (fired for cause or they quit without a new job to go to) from receiving benefits for many weeks.

That's all one can say about that -- it's got nothing to do with net employment. Nothing. At all.

Not if you are counting weekly numbers against monthly numbers

Which only someone who is totally and completely ignorant of labor statistics would do.

UI claims have absolutely nothing to do with either the unemployment rate or net employment gains or losses.

While those 3.2 million quit, retired or were fired, what else happened? About 3.4 million were hired.

There's the 200K of NET new job creation/month. Get it yet? UI claims have nothing to do with net changes in total employment. All that matters is total hires/total separations.

UI claims are only slightly predictive of changes in the unemployment rate. Mainly when they rocket up to 500-600K per week. Then, you can be pretty sure that new hires aren't going to exceed separations.

Meanwhile, the UI numbers are at about the best levels they've been at for about 15 years, and, on a percentage of work-force basis, much longer. Never mind that you don't have even the foggiest understanding of them.

Believe it or not, and despite the worst that President Chickenshit can do and has done to wreck the U.S. economy, it still manages net employment gains. We should be doing twice as well, but that will have to wait until the lying sack of chickenshit is gone. Nothing can defeat the U.S. economy, not even jug-ears.

Every single one of those numbers reflects an actual dollar balance. They are not subject to any adjustment or modification or smoothing or substitution — they are just actual numbers reflecting real transactions in any given 24 hour period.

Since they aren’t subject to any fiddling or game-playing, they’re the only fed numbers I pay any attention to or rely on.

For Sep-Oct-Nov, using withheld income and SS taxes only, year-over year withholding is running about +4%. Earlier in the year — Jan-Feb-Mar — it was running about +8% y-o-y.

Of the current roughly +4%, about 2% is for new jobs (total non-farm employment has been running about +2% y-o-y all year.) That leaves about +2% as increased withholding for existing “old” jobs. Assuming 2% inflation, that leaves essentially no net wage growth happening right now. Net wage growth was running about +5% early in the year and has slowed down steadily all year.

The upshot of all that is employment is growing slowly but steadily, and average wages are stagnant.

Despite the worst that President Chickenshit can throw at it, the U.S. economy is resilient enough to manage to grow slowly. Perhaps growth rates will improve a little next year with Republican control of the Senate. 2017 might finally see a return to consistent, solid 4%+ growth if jug-ears is replaced with any Republican.

A general point on the article. Shedlock is mistaken when he says “all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out” when talking about how unemployed people are counted.

Whether or not anyone is collecting a UI check has absolutely NOTHING to do with who is counted as unemployed. That number is determined solely by the Household Survey — you are either able to work and actively looking or you ain’t. UI doesn’t matter, period.

The Saudis don’t really give a crap about US production, there’s little they can do about it, anyway. They’re much more interested in squeezing the Iranians and the Russians at the moment. If Venezuela also gets squeezed a little, that’s OK, too.

The USSC issues decisions, period, end of story. There’s no such thing as a suspended USSC decision, there has never been and there will never be. Only a lower court (District or Circuit) might suspend a decision pending appeal.

The USSC decides a case and that’s it. Congress can then do whatever it wants about it whenever. Or never.

Even when they decline to hear a case, they don’t say why, they simply decline. Which means that there were 3 or fewer votes to hear it. For whatever (whether one or many) reason(s). Everyone else is left to puzzle out the split.

They only make “statements” about cases in the form of a decision — a majority opinion (and any concurrences) and any dissenting opinion(s) (and any concurrences.)

Any Justice who wants to make a “statement” is free to do so as part of the opinion on the decision. And they often do so. But, that’s an individual thing. And, that’s just dicta of no legal import. Not binding on the USSC or anyone else.

The LAST thing I want the USSC doing is issuing formal “statements” about anything. Ever. It ain’t their (constitutional) job.

There will never be any USSC “recommendation” and your prediction on the timing is way off.

The USSC granted cert — accepted the case for hearing. Briefings, followed by oral argument, probably in March. There will probably be no ruling before June-July of ‘15 — when most rulings from this court term are released.

There is zero possibility that it’s “finished” before the new Congress is sworn in January.

The USSC won’t recommend anything, they’ll simply rule upon whether subsidies provided by the federal exchange are contrary to the law as written and are illegal. That’s it.

If they (as they should, IMO) rule that the federal subsidies can’t be paid to people living in the 34 states that didn’t set up an “exchange” under the law, it will effectively kill this misbegotten socialist adventure by President Chickenshit.

Can’t happen too soon, but it won’t be by January.

Odds are good that the USSC will blow it up. Obviously, 4 Justices (the previous dissenters in NFIB v. Sebelius) voted to hear it, maybe Roberts, too.

They certainly didn’t have to hear it, there’s no split in the Circuit courts (if you assume that the DC Circuit will overturn their previous 3-judge decision when they re-hear it en banc.) But, the USSC apparently didn’t want to wait and put it off a year.

That’s a pretty good indication that either the 4 NFIB dissenters want to force Roberts to atone or Roberts himself wants to atone for his previous goofy “tax” justification idiocy in NFIB. He certainly is enabled and encouraged to do so by the recent election results. Which should have nothing to do with anything, but probably has and will.

All in all, very, very positive. Maybe a pile of Congressional votes between Jan and June on the individual mandate and “keeping your doctor” and “keeping your insurance” (3 participation problems) and the medical device tax (a revenue problem) will totally cripple the monstrous atrocity called the ACA before the USSC gets around to ruling, but that remains to be seen.

Who knows? Maybe the massive soon-to-be announced rate increases will provide enough voter outrage to generate veto-proof margins for repeal in January. That would be the best outcome of all.

Unfortunately, new initial claims for unemployment were running about 275,000 per week in October, or 1,100,000 for the entire month. In other words, the Obama economy is lost 825,000 jobs more than it gained in October, 2014.

You can't possibly be serious. Either that, or you know less than nothing about the U.S. labor market and labor statistics. More likely both.

In the last year or so, every month about 3.4 million people are hired. And about 3.2 million people quit, retire or are fired. Otherwise known as "separations" by BLS.

There's the roughly 200K of net new jobs each month.

Of the 3.2 million separations, about 1.3 million file new claims for unemployment in any given month. About 300K/week.

The rest quit to take a new job, retired or don't bother filing a UC claim because they know they are disqualified (fired for cause) from receiving benefits for many weeks.

While President Chickenshit's economy stinks, it would stink a lot worse if Republicans hadn't won in 2010 and put a stop to his nonsense. This year's election plugs up more holes.

We're actually doing reasonably well thanks to 2010 -- although it could be a LOT better -- but we are growing at about 2%/year. The U.S. economy can withstand almost anything, even a blithering, narcissistic moron in the White House who knows nothing about economics and will never admit that he's made a single mistake in his entire life.

Much better days come when jug-ears is finally gone.

Meanwhile, weekly UC claims have absolutely nothing to do with monthly net employment figures. Contrary to the goofy rubbish spouted by you and many others on this and other threads.

As a freshman at the U of Minn in ‘69, I picked up a copy of “Unsafe At Any Speed” in a used bookstore for 25 cents. Only because I had picked up a ‘65 Corvair Spyder for a few hundred bucks. The only sporty vehicle ever made under the Corvair nameplate.

A few months later, a 35 year-old Nader — known only for his BS book — was going to be speaking on-campus at Coffman Union, the main “student center” and a major venue, it seated maybe 2,000. So, out of curiosity, I showed up. Hung around afterwards and met the guy as a bunch of admirers were asking him questions. I wasn’t impressed.

He spent most of his time yapping about “PIRGS” — public interest research groups — and sure enough, by the next year MPIRG (M for Minnesota) existed. Soon, they were whacking students for mandatory fees every quarter. Now, they’re everywhere, sucking up student and public money.

Ralph passed his sell-by date 40 years ago, but he never stops with his liberal BS. When he stroked-out years ago, I thought he might hang it up. No such luck, he’s still at it at age 80. Most people get smarter as they get older. Not Ralph.

Obviously, having already been given the chance to do so, you can’t or won’t produce anything, so anyone reading this will be able to decide whether you are 1) lying about your “documents,” or 2) an anti-Semite who wants to spread rubbish about European Jewish bankers, specifically the Rothschilds.

Absent documents which “trace the history” I will conclude that the later is the case.

Do you understand why I object to the goofy BS about the Fed being “owned” by bankers, etc., etc.?

The Fed was a really, really dumb idea, but it’s a purely government operation, the place where almost all dumb ideas germinate and bloom to our detriment.

I actually would prefer that there was no government lender of last resort — that it be entirely left up to the private sector and no one else — after all, those are the guys (together with their shareholders, who can fire them) with something at stake. As it was before the advent of the Fed for over 100 years.

Which means that I’m all in favor of a “Fed”-equivalent which is actually, totally, publicly and fully owned outright by the private sector. That is to say, by the banks who get together to make loans to each other such that the system always functions. It’s their money at stake on a loan to the ABC or XYZ bank that got into trouble — they’re going to be much more careful about the terms than any fed bureaucrat will ever be.

A system over which the government has absolutely no say whatsoever.

That puts us in a place where there’s no mistake about who is responsible. There’s no mistake about who did what or to whom or why. No excuses are possible.

Yes, Wilson was an incompetent idiot (much like the current inhabitant of the White House,) but, no, the Fed isn’t a “European entity,” nor does it have anything to do with the evil Jooos, or, as you put it, the centuries-old “Rothschild” endeavors in banking. Stormfront much?

You’ve obviously already read my reply, my reference to “ranting and raving” was at the very end of it.

Who is behind all of the crud of the last 100 years?

Idiot politicians. Simple as that. Politicians always find a way to debase the currency. It’s what they do, one way or another, central bank-based or otherwise.

Unless you want to dispute something I’ve said, you need to stop posting ridiculous garbage about the Fed. That sort of junk is rampant amongst conservatives (and the general public) who know absolutely nothing of the facts.

It all sounds great, but none of it is true. You can’t argue for the abolition of the Fed based on nonsense.

There are plenty of good reasons the Fed shouldn’t exist, but made-up stuff contributes nothing.

How about some FACTS, instead of the usual rubbish (such as the idiotic link that you posted) that gets repeated over and over?

Here's something I wrote years ago in response to someone else who had the same misconceptions about the Fed that you (and others) seem to have:

The Federal Reserve System Board of Governors is a FEDERAL AGENCY created by federal law. All 7 members of the Board are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 14 year terms. The System BoG formulates monetary policy. The System BoG is where reserve requirements are set, where the discount rate is set, and where rules and regulations are adopted.

The 7 System BoG members are a PERMANENT MAJORITY of the 12 member Federal Open Market Committee, the other 5 members being the President of the NY Fed and 4 other regional Fed bank presidents each serving one year terms.

Regional Fed bank presidents are appointed (subject to approval by the System BoG) by each regional Fed bank's 9 member Board of Directors, 3 of whom are appointed by the System BoG (none of these 3 may be an officer, director, employee or shareholder of any bank,) and 6 of whom are elected by the member bank "shareholders" (3 of these 6 may not be an officer, director or employee of any bank.) One of the directors appointed by the System BoG is designated by the System BoG as Chairman of the Board and another as Deputy Chairman.

The 3 "bank" representatives on each 9 member regional Board are excluded from the process of appointing the regional Fed bank's president.

The Chairman of the System BoG is also the Chairman of the FOMC. The FOMC implements System BoG monetary policy. The FOMC is where fed funds target rates are set, where margin rates are set, and is responsible for open market operations to carry out policy.

The System BoG and the FOMC are where ALL of the actual power of the Fed resides. The 7 System BoG members nominated by the President are an absolute and permanent majority of both the BoG and the FOMC. They hold and exercise ALL of the power of the Fed.

The Boards of the regional Fed banks suggest changes in the discount rate, but the System BoG must approve them. Other than that, the primary function of the regional Fed banks is to provide services like check clearing and FedWire to member banks. They do the scut work and a lot of research, and their presidents give lots of speeches.

Here are 14 key differences between the regional Fed bank "shares" and actual shares of real common stock in the real world:

1) If you want to buy shares of IBM (or any other public company) you may buy any amount you wish. The "shares" Fed member banks have to buy is equal to 6% (3% in cash, 3% on-call) of their paid-in capital and retained earnings. By statute.

2) If you own shares of IBM, you will never be required by anyone to buy more for any reason. As Fed member banks' capital increases, they are required to purchase more Fed regional bank "shares." By statute.

3) You buy IBM shares through a broker on a market like the NYSE or NASDAQ, not from the government. You simply buy them, you don't fill out an application to the Federal Reserve as prospective Fed member banks do, by statute.

4) You buy your IBM shares from some (unknown) individual or institution on the other side of the trade. Not from the government, as Fed member banks must, by statute.

5) When you want to sell IBM shares you use the same markets you used to purchase them, and do so whenever you wish. Fed member banks can only sell their "shares" back to the government and only when they cease to be a member bank. By statute.

6) You can pledge your IBM shares as collateral on a loan at anytime you wish. No member bank can pledge or hypothecate its regional Fed bank "shares" under any circumstances, ever, by statute.

7) An owner of IBM shares can vote on all issues that are put to a shareholder vote. Regional Fed bank "shares" entitle a member bank to vote for 6 of the 9 members of its regional bank's Board of Directors. That's it. By statute.

8) Owners of IBM shares gets one vote for each share. Member banks holding regional Fed bank "shares" get one vote, period, no matter how many "shares" they own. By statute.

9) Candidates for IBM's Board of Directors are nominated by IBM or its shareholders in accordance with its by-laws, and are then voted on by shareholders. The Fed's Board of Governors are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and neither Fed member banks nor their 12 elected regional bank Boards of Directors have anything whatsoever to say about it. By statute.

10) If IBM's Board of Directors decides that they want to increase the dividend payable to shareholders they can do so at anytime they wish. The 6% "dividend" on Fed regional bank "shares" is set by statute.

11) If IBM wants to amend its corporate by-laws, it can do so at anytime with the approval of a majority of shareholders. By statute, no regional Fed bank can amend its charter, ever.

12) IBM is a profit-making private enterprise, and they may do whatever they wish with any after-tax profits. The Fed regional banks must turn over 100% of their operating income (net after payment of the statutory 6% "dividend") to the US Treasury each year. By statute.

13) As time goes on, the value of IBM shares fluctuates, sometimes widely. The value of each member bank's regional Fed bank "shares" is fixed at $100. By statute.

14) If IBM is liquidated, your shares entitle you to your relative proportion of assets left (if any) after all creditors of IBM have been paid. Fed regional bank "shares" entitle member banks to exactly zero Fed assets under any circumstances. By statute.

"Shares" of the regional Fed banks owned by Fed member banks are mandatory, totally restricted, entail virtually no rights or privileges, and confer no ownership of anything under any circumstances.

The reality is that regional Fed bank "shares" are nothing more than a semi-permanent deposit of capital by another name.

It's unfortunate that the word "shares" was ever associated with the mandatory deposits by Fed member banks because it creates an impression that they're something that they're not.

The use of the word "share" was very narrowly technically correct as these quasi-governmental regional Fed bank entities were formed as corporations which issue shares, as do all corporations. But, it gave rise to conspiracy theories cooked up and propagated by people who know little or nothing about the Fed, banking, government or law, but focus laser-like on the regional Fed bank "shares" to claim that "the Fed is privately owned." Never mind that the regional Fed banks have no power over anything.

The Fed is not privately owned and never has been. For good or ill, it's a 100% government-controlled operation.

For the ill-informed/tin-foil hatters, FACTS are unfortunate, but nonetheless remain true.

Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I think the Fed should be abolished. It was always a bad idea, remains so and has always, from day one been a 100% government-controlled entity.

First, no bank, “Wall Street” or otherwise (or combination of them) owns the Fed. The Fed is, and always has been a government operation.

Second, the entire idea of securitizing a stream of future payments is based on the iron-clad fact that the stream of payments will actually happen.

Unfortunately, for the states that securitized, the income stream is diminishing. Oops.

As a long-time smoker, I’m happy to help that process along. Instead of paying $6 or more per pack, I make my own for about 75 cents.

The combined federal and state tax in Florida on commercial cigarettes is about $2.34/pack.

On the last 10,000 I’ve made for personal use, instead of paying about $1,200 in taxes, the 25 pounds of tobacco I used incurred $25 of federal tax, initially paid by the manufacturer. And then by me, of course.

What I make for myself are the equal of anything produced commercially, and better to the extent that there are no additives at all. 100s. 1” filter. Indistinguishable from commercial, except that they taste much better.

Think Florida is bad? NY state is far worse. Total tax of $5.36/pack.

NY city? $6.86/pack. Almost $70/carton in taxes alone. No wonder there is a thriving contraband trade. Hijacked cigarettes, anyone?

NYC prices are over $10/pack. No wonder they sell “loose” cigarettes on the street, they’re worth 50 cents each.

Apparently, that sort of stuff can get you killed. Just another reason I don’t like NY, even having been there many times over the decades.

I don't know about Detroit, but in Miami at my house it would cover the $15/quarter I pay for about 17 years.

But, they are probably getting hit with late fees/turn-it-off fees/turn-it-on fees that are 50 or 100 bucks (or more) a pop.

So, I'd guess that the average thousand that the average deadbeat owes is probably 10% water and 90% fees.

After all, this is Detroit, home of government-bankrupting union hacks. Some grossly overpaid water department or contractor slob has to physically open or close the valve. Those valves on single family homes are typically a few inches below ground level in an enclosure covered by a metal plate less than a foot square.

This part was funny:

"When the coast is clear, and the trucks from the contractor shutting off water for the city of Detroit have rolled away, the men with water keys come.

They offer residents whose supply has just been shut off a tempting deal. For $20, they will use their tools to turn the water main back on immediately, and illegally"

LOL. "Water keys."

Which is a couple of pieces of rebar welded into a "T" shape with an inverted steel "U" welded to the bottom of the "T" which fits over the 1/2" wide valve lever that needs to be turned 90 degrees to turn the water back on. Notice the article doesn't describe what a magical "water key" actually is.

Of course, none of these people know where their main water valve is or they could do it themselves if they had a tool worth about 2 bucks.

Then again, these are the same people who think that food originates in and comes from grocery stores, so maybe they couldn't.

Employees, commentators, politicians, you, me and anyone else other than the owner has nothing to say about it.

And, no, “stock traders” haven’t gutted anything, ever.

There have been cases of corporate raiders accumulating a controlling position and then screwing up what they bought, but those very few guys aren’t “stock traders.”

And, even in those few cases where an attempt to rationalize or restructure a business didn’t work, well, that’s the way it goes. Nobody gets a guarantee that ownership of their employer won’t change hands while they’re employed.

If I owned it, anyone who refused to do his/her job would be fired. Period. No matter what. There’s plenty of people who will be happy do those jobs with no guff or BS about “how it used to be” or any other rubbish.

All you need to know about this idiotic story is summed up in these four sentences from the article:

“Seventeen state lawmakers signed a letter on Saturday calling for a boycott of Market Basket and expressing support for employees. The number of politicians to have signed that letter has since grown. Attorney General and candidate for governor Martha Coakley issued a statement Sunday calling employees actions inspiring. Likely Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, as well as New Hampshire Senator Jean Shaheen, and New Hampshire Senate hopeful Scott Brown, who formerly represented Massachusetts, have all also offered support to employees.”

None of them seem to give two hoots about property rights. What a surprise. Which goes a long way toward explaining why Taxachusetts is as screwed up as it is.

Next thing you know, the state of MA will buy it, rename it “Shaheen’s,” rehire all the self-entitled slobs and hacks who were fired in the interest of “fairness,” unionize it, add 3 new layers of management and be in bankruptcy a few years hence.

He, like the rest of his fellow guilt-ridden liberals, apparently buys all of the BS about increasing income inequality that has been spouted for decades.

Fact is, income “inequality” has remained about the same for the last 50 years with minor variations.

It’s not hard to concoct a bogus case when you ignore (as income) a trillion per year in welfare, the effects of taxes, changing average household size and a bunch of other important stuff. Piketty (a socialist) writing a book chock-full of the same old stupid garbage is just the latest example.

The entire argument is rubbish. There is something of a case to made for decreasing income mobility (movement among income quintiles, up and down) but that’s mostly a result of liberal government policies.

The guy just parrots the usual liberal lies to make himself feel better. He knows nothing about economics or the gross manipulation and distortion of statistics or convenient omission of critical facts used by liberals to support their ridiculous arguments.

“Income inequality” is on a par with “global warming.” Both are total BS, concocted by the same type of people with the same socialist “we know better than you” agenda.

“Know-nothing” is accurate. For instance, you. To which I would add attempted bully, although you’re not very good at it.

Even though you claim to have read my previous posts, either you’re a really bad liar or really bad at math, as obviously I don’t post “every few years,” as you would have it.

But, hey, that’s just you — good at generalities, bad at facts and details. Good at throwing crap around with nothing to back it up.

Fact is, I bother to post maybe once every 3 months or so on average, as anyone who bothers to look can see. Only when I see some really outrageous idiocy. I pass on the run-of-the-mill stuff. Of which there is a lot.

Notice how there are no longer any tax-protester idiots around this place? I had some small part in that in that I relentlessly hammered and buried their BS every time I saw it.

Go back a few years, my posts are there. Either they gave up out of embarrassment or the mods finally figured out that they were full of crap and zapped them. I have no idea, but I wasn’t going to let their garbage stand without a response.

In this case, it was you who responded to me with ridiculous nonsense you can’t and haven’t once defended other than with meaningless opinion.

And, as is your apparent predilection, no, wait, maybe it’s a compulsion, you have once again tried to divert the conversation from your indefensible BS.

The economy is growing at a crummy 2% or so and the market is discounting our better future, all of which has nothing to do with the dollar, and that better future is coming soon in November when jug-ears is totally defanged and turned into a nice little lame-duck puppy who runs around yapping his Marxist crap while everyone ignores him and wonders how in the hell he was ever elected.

BTW, an “appeal to authority” is for the purpose of supporting a point. I only mentioned that I’ve traded this stuff for 30+ years so that you would understand that you weren’t dealing with one of your fellow know-nothing idiots.

Which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand — that the economy is growing despite jug-ears and the market is discounting the future.

So, let’s review. You haven’t spent even two words attempting to defend your completely and totally indefensible position that stock prices are due to depreciation of the dollar, but you have called me a/an:

Sorry, but your continued attempts at misdirection won’t work — I’ve only quoted your EXACT words.

I copied and pasted them from your posts. I don’t need to misrepresent what you said, it’s there for everyone to read.

All you have is ad hominem attacks on me.

Face it, you can’t defend your idiocy. Stock prices cannot be attributed to the declining dollar beyond the extent I mentioned — ~25%. Out of 150%.

You’ve been silent on that for good reason. You’re flat-out wrong.

I’ve appealed to no authority (where did you get that, anyway? Do you think it makes you sound smart?) I’m only pointing out that you can’t defend your proposition — you haven’t even tried in your last half-dozen posts. Or, for that matter, ever. All you do is attack. Nothing but ad hominem. I’m an “asshole.”

Yeah, well, everyone has figured out by now that you can’t support your nonsense, so you try to change the subject, mostly by resorting to ad hominems.

Now we also have your opinion that you think the market “is completely out of joint, completely out of any touch with reality” which explains why you don’t want to admit that there is even crummy 2% growth in the economy.

Let me put it this way. You are obviously ill-equipped to form any conclusions worth reading about the market.

BTW, everyone also knows that anyone who has to claim how smart they are usually isn’t. You’ve certainly proved that.

My point remains unrefuted by you or anyone else.

The economy has withstood the worst jug-ears could throw at it and still grows despite his idiocy. The market is busy discounting our more prosperous future, whether you or any of the others on this thread like it or not.

You’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what you’re talking about despite your bluster and “assertions” with “accuracy.”

Your latest failed attempt to explain higher security prices is “commodities.” As I said gold only explains 20 to 30% at most, so you fall back to commodities in general.

The dollar must be depreciating vis a vis “commodities” and therefore security prices are higher. Which you have “explored enough in this arena” to utter yet more nonsense.

The Reuters/Jeffries CRB, the current version of the old CRB index (that’s right — go look it up) has sold at today’s prices (~295) in every year since ‘08. An index of 19 commodities, including metals. Since stocks bottomed in ‘09, the CRB is up about 25%. Gosh, that’s about the same as gold, and it still doesn’t explain 153%.

I attacked your specious “argument” because it was false and you don’t know whereof you speak.

My, my, are you upset at being exposed as an economic illiterate? Or, is it because you can’t be bothered to read an entire post before flying off the handle?

I’m sorry that you had to go to the trouble to look up what the dollar index is, but your smokescreen of ad hominem doesn’t cut any mustard. BTW, I’ve been trading currencies and the dollar index for over 30 years, you’re not talking to one of your fellow know-nothing rubes.

My point was and is that this economy is growing DESPITE the worst jug-ears can throw at it and has thrown at it for the last 5 years. There’s no point in denying it, you just make yourself look silly.

Ya know, you're a good example of what's wrong with this site and knee-jerk conservatives in general -- that is, you don't know have the first clue about what you're talking about.

In fact, the US Dollar index has traded between 79 and 80 in '91, '93, '95, '05, '08, '10, '12, '13 and '14.

The DJIA is up 153% from the lows of '09, yet the dollar has gone EXACTLY NOWHERE for over a decade. So, no, the market isn't higher because "the dollar is devaluing."

But, that's against other fiat currencies, so how about against gold? From 1,000 in '08, it's about 1,300, up 30%. A few months ago, under 1,200, up less than 20%.

Nope, that's not it either. At most, "devaluation" of the dollar accounts for but a small fraction of the price behavior of securities.

I won't hold my breath for you and most of the others on this thread to admit to facts.

I will join everyone on this thread in hoping for the rejection of the moronic jug-ears and all that he stands for at the earliest possible date.

But, contrary to the idiocy on this thread, the economy is growing at about 2% -- way too slowly -- but that will improve when jug-ears is neutralized and then finally replaced so the process of undoing his damage can begin.

The economy IS growing, and by a lot more than .1%. Maybe something like 2% this year.

Proof? Simple. Actual, collected withholding and income taxes are up about 7% year-over-year. Fact. Withholding taxes aren’t paid over to the feds unless they have to be because the employment and the associated withholding took place. Don’t believe it? See the daily Treasury reports.

Why is that? Because the underlying U.S. economy is so strong and resilient that it can resist and overcome even the worst that the sh!tbags in the jug-ears administration can throw at it. And they’ve thrown an amazing amount of crap at it in the last 5 years.

The DJIA just made a new all-time high. Why? The market is discounting the wholesale slaughter of Democrats in November and a probable Republican win in 2016. The pain of what will be 8 years of BS from jug-ears is slowly coming to an end and it’s starting to become obvious.

Will a semi-decent economy, still recovering at a pitiful rate relative to what it should be benefit Democrats in November? Not a chance.

Joe 6-pack understands that he’s not better off. Capital investment sucks, new business creation sucks, job creation consists mostly of relatively low-pay jobs, and unemployment is down only because people have left the labor force. People are sick and tired of 5 years of failed liberal crapola.

The era of BS is about to end and the market is saying so. Reality is that the 2% growth economy will improve once it’s clear that jug-ears has been totally neutered in November.

But, that’s no reason to deny that this economy is currently expanding and has been for years — even though it’s at half the rate (or less) than it should be. Our economy is capable of withstanding much more than one passing totally clueless moron in the White House.

You’re quite right, it is being misrepresented. The mosque is next door in another building. Three feet away, but not connected.

In 1971 I lived for a year about 5 blocks south of this building, at 19th and Minnehaha. A year before that on Franklin Ave, maybe 8 blocks away. A year later, maybe 6 blocks away in Middlebrook Hall, a U of M dorm. I was a student.

Cedar Ave. S. was a bunch of small businesses on the west edge of the west bank (of the Mississippi river) of the U of MN Minneapolis campus. Nothing notable. A few bars. Not upscale, not run-down. Lots of students. Little crime. No mosques.

After taking a look at the area, Cedar Ave. S. now seems to be dominated by “ethnic” small businesses with lots of Muslim and African names. For instance:

And one Lutheran outfit that lost its building when I-94 was built in the ‘60s, commenting that “The mission-minded congregation voted to use its resources in active outreach to the Cedar-Riverside community rather than investing in a new church building.”

Are there more “religious communities” in the area? They don’t say.

They also call themselves a “progressive community,” whatever that means, as if we don’t know.

I guess you can get away with that sort of crap when most of your members are Muslims and the big guys who pay the bills are universities or colleges like the U of M and St. Catherine and Augsburg. And everyone else keeps quiet.

It also turns out that the “apartments” above the grocery store that burned were apparently actually rental rooms, all (except for one empty room) occupied by single men, mostly Somalis, according to one report. Which might explain the Somali “community organizer”-type who was quoted as being “concerned” in another report I read.

Now, perhaps every single one of these businesses are owned by heroic entrepreneurs striving to achieve the American dream and all of the rental room occupants were upstanding people engaged in nothing but legal activities.

But, it is passing strange that an explosion and subsequent fire just happens to occur in a building full of young Somali men right next door to a mosque in a neighborhood that now seems to be overrun by Somali ex-pats.

I can only note that other Somalis, having previously emigrated to Minnesota (surely not by choice) have then been later caught attempting to carry out or support terrorist activities. There’s certainly cause for some concern, it remains to be seen if it’s justified or not.

The neighborhood has certainly changed.

I’ll wait to hear what is revealed as time goes on before forming any conclusions.

However, new unemployment benefit claims have nothing to do with net new job creation, horrible as it has been.

~4.3 million separations/month leads to ~350K/week (~1.5 million/month) in new unemployment claims. No surprise there.

In a healthy economy, with 3.5-4.0% growth, new hires would be, for instance (and it has been previous to Dear Leader,) 5.5 million/month and separations 5 million/month -- that's net new employment of 500K/month, not at all unusual for a rapidly growing economy -- we used to do this routinely prior to Dear Leader.

New unemployment claims would still be 300-350K/week. Oh, the horror! According to your math and logic, new job creation would be about a third of new unemployment. We're doomed!

See how comparing apples and oranges, never mind ignoring an important reference point about how to think about the oranges doesn't work?

The difference between what we are doing and what we could be doing is the lying idiot we elected and his anti-growth policies, not some BLS statistical conspiracy.

Actually, there is a very large amount of idiocy expressed here, most of which I ignore.

Every once in a while, when I see something particularly egregious such as your post about the huckster and scam-artist Griffin, it demands a response. Not for my benefit, but for the benefit of other readers, some of whom might mistakenly place some credence in what you reflexively burp up about a discredited whack-job conspiracist.

Griffin is a whack-job conspiracist with no facts backing up his idiotic junk. His book is a long-ago debunked joke designed to suck in the gullible, while making Griffin money at the expense of the rubes.

One can object to the existence or structure or purpose or methods of the Fed, but one cannot effectively do so by concocting or promoting fantasies, believable only by the economically and historically illiterate.

Anyone who recommends the detestable Griffin and his ridiculous book do a disservice to conservative ideas and give ammunition to leftists who propound the generally false idea that conservatives are idiots. But, in your case, they’re right.

Of course it is. That's what every idiotic article like this is about. Failure to deliver. OMG! Where did the gold go? Problem is that no failure to deliver has ever happened. Never will, barring a nuclear war that destroys NY.

Its about the fact that they have been selling contracts.

Your statement is absolutely false and demonstrates that you have no comprehension of reality. The idea behind leasing gold is that the gold gets sold to buy U.S. Treasury notes or bonds to scalp 1 or 2%/year.

The gold didn't disappear, it still exists -- someone else owns it. Guess what? They store it somewhere. Like the Comex. Whoever sold it buys Comex (or other futures) contracts to hedge their price risk. Nothing really changed, on net, and the gold likely never moved from its repository. Moving gold around is expensive. The article is just the usual BS.

Now, they add a disclaimer to their reporting that basically says Hey, dont blame us, were not the counterparty...

They said no such thing. Your claim is total crap. As is all the worthless junk posted by people like you who don't have the first clue about the Comex, futures, or the metals markets.

I’ve posted on and off here for many years. The last guy I really thoroughly trashed was Willie Green, maybe 8 or 10 years ago because he was a blowhard socialist who didn’t know what he was talking about.

Remember Choo-Choo Willie? Let me give you some free advice. Don’t get into an argument with me about bankrupt steel companies, particularly Bethlehem. That was Willie’s mistake. Well, one of his many mistakes.

Since most of the idiot tax protesters who used to hang around here seem to have gone away, there are very few really, truly flaming morons to engage, so I don’t post much.

That you think that you’re some sort of genius because you have concluded that I’m a “sleeper” because you were too unobservant to have noticed me over the years, well, what can I say?

How about that you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what you’re talking about all over this thread. Your nonsense was just too easy a target.

I dislike the idiotic a$$hole in the WH at least as much as you do, perhaps more, but I also dislike disinformation such as you posted. Nothing I can do about the fact that you don’t like how I took it apart.